M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

section 10AA and foreign tax credit in respect of foreign tax paid presently under dispute with Australian tax authorities 4.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground pertaining to disallowance of foreign tax credit of Rs. 218,16,32,251

R. SRINIVAS RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sattar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO (1991) reported in 191 ITR 667 and submitted that the terms of section 40A(3) are held to be not absolute. The genuine and bona-fide transactions are not taken

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. Consequently, Grounds 1 to 4 of the assessee's appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. Grounds 5 to 11 – Deduction u/s.10B and 10AA of the Act and denial of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation. 7.1.1 These grounds (supra) are raised in respect of the denial of carry forward of unabsorbed

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowing Sitting fee of Rs.6,19,100/- made to the then Chairman of the Appellant Company by relying on the DRP directions of AY 2016-17. 14. The CIT(A) erred in not awaiting the remand report of the Ld AO and erred in issuing directions in contravention of section 251

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowing Sitting fee of Rs.6,19,100/- made to the then Chairman of the Appellant Company by relying on the DRP directions of AY 2016-17. 14. The CIT(A) erred in not awaiting the remand report of the Ld AO and erred in issuing directions in contravention of section 251

M/S. SLK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6N, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances made under section 40(a)(i). However, the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the argument forwarded by the assessee proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee without assigning any reasoning. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT-A is reproduced as under: “5.3.3 The facts of the case, assessment order and submissions of the appellant have been considered

M/S. SLK SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowances made under section 40(a)(i). However, the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the argument forwarded by the assessee proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee without assigning any reasoning. The relevant findings of the ld. CIT-A is reproduced as under: “5.3.3 The facts of the case, assessment order and submissions of the appellant have been considered

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be exercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be exercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be exercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

251(1)(a) of the Act confirming power to commissioner/joint commissioner of appeal in respect of setting aside the assessment and refer back the case to the AO for fresh assessment, but such power can only be exercised when the assessment made under section 144B of the Act. 18.5 In the present case, the assessment year involved

ASST. C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SASKEN COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A 550/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year:2011-12) M/S.Sasken Technologies Ltd. 139/25, Amarjyothi Layout, Ring Road, Domlur, Bengaluru-560071. Pan:Aaecs 6424 R … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent & It(Tp)A No.627/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year:2011-12) (By Revenue) ****** Assessee By : Shri Padamchand Khincha,Ca. Revenue By : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 29/01/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Rendering Software Development Services. Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Was Filed On 28/11/2011 Declaring Income Of Rs.25,33,10,603/- & This Was Revised On It(Tp)A No.550 & 627/Bang/2016 Page 2 Of 21 20/03/2013 At Total Income Of Rs.23,72,94,572/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Took Up The Case For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Noticing The Following International Transactions In Form 3Ced Along With Transfer Pricing Study Report:

section 14A offering to tax a sum of Rs.8,32,554/-. However, the AO was of the opinion that the amount of disallowance should be computed having regard to provisions of the rule 8D of Income-tax Rules, 1962. Accordingly, he computed disallowance as under: 14.1 Applying rule 8D of IT Rules, AO computed disallowance at Rs.1

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

JUPITER CAPITAL P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

Accordingly, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

section 14A is as follows: “5.6 This amount of Rs.42,75,757/- is held as attracted for disallowance u/ s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. However, the assessee has already made a disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.8,28,302/-, the balance amount of Rs.34,47,455/- is added to the Income returned by the assessee

M/S. THE RAJAJI NAGAR HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

251/- only. 3. The return was processed by the CPC vide intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 12th February 2019. In the intimation order, the CPC in pursuance to the provision of section 80AC(ii) of the Act disallowed